Yes-Two Alpha--I agree--when the Ogle designed Trident was introduced I thought it was awful.However--latterly I am beginning to think that maybe the design was before its time.So much so that I am going to reconfigure the 69 looks 71 back into a full blown Ogle 69.Tastes change through time I guess.

I feel the same way Tridentman, a friend here has an aquamarine Ogle Trident, without the rayguns, and it looks fine, quite attractive even. Unfortunately, the Americans didn't think so at the time. On Craig Vetter's site, he says there were about 1800 Rocket III's sold in the USA in 1969, and even less Tridents. Similar numbers in 1970.Combining that colour on the Tridents, with the unusual styling, was just too much of a handicap.

On Craig Vetter's site, he says there were about 1800 Rocket III's sold in the USA in 1969, and even less Tridents. Similar numbers in 1970.

Mmmm ... doubt it. While I'm not sure how many were sent to the US, the total '69 production was just over 3,600 T150's and 3,300 R3's, and there have been enough posts on TOL over the years to know they were still being sold new in 1971. The total 1970 production was 286 or 287 (depending on your source) T150's, some of which went to the US, and 147 R3's, none of which went to the US.

. But, by definition, there cannot be "Similar numbers in 1970"; 1800 + 1800 = 3600 while the total 1969 + 1970 production is less than 4,000 T150's and less than 3,500 R3's. As I say, '69-model triples were still being sold new in the US in calendar 1971; also, in those two years, the rest of the world took many more than 400 T150's and a handful of R3's.

My point was, I doubt "Similar numbers in 1970" - there weren't the physical number of triples in existence and some that were still physically sat on dealers' floors in 1971.

I recently bought this BSA 25 Starfire. # is B25B 18xx and then a "Y".It was registered as a 1969 in april 1969.The stamped date on the engine "24 8 67" which makes it model year 1968. However with the "Y" mark and the 3 ¼ Imp gallon 1969 steel tank painted in 1969 color it was IMO sold as a 1969.see this thread here on BSA Bulletin board

I Sold a 67 A65 Thunderbolt in Vegas last Jan.The frame # was A65TA 1721 AND the engine # was A65TA 1721X.How about that to throw a wrench into the Y theory.I don't remember if it had a dash before the X or not.I don't think I have a pic of it.My 67 Hornet West coast version is A65HA 9330-Y

I Sold a 67 A65 Thunderbolt in Vegas last Jan.The frame # was A65TA 1721 AND the engine # was A65TA 1721X.How about that to throw a wrench into the Y theory.I don't remember if it had a dash before the X or not.I don't think I have a pic of it.My 67 Hornet West coast version is A65HA 9330-Y

Thanks for the info leturner. Almost certainly there would have been a dash before the X. The -X shows up on early 1967 season twins, the highest example I've seen is A65TA 4458-X, the -X indicates the same modifications made as the -Y.A few of us suspect that the X stamp was used on twins that had already come off the line, but hadn't left the factory yet, when the oil manifold etc. modifications were introduced.

Noticed this bit of info over on the BSA Motorcycles facebook page. "Frame number 17681 was built on the 5th June 1967 and dispatched to Slocombes, London, NW10. It was an A65 Spitfire.", "The bike was refurbished into the 'Y' bike in early June 1968 and sent to the USA East Coast."For this particular bike at least, it looks like we can eliminate dock strikes or being sent back from North America as factors leading up to the need for "refurbishment".

Another interesting item, which may be related, from pages 20 and 21 in Brad Jones' recent book "BSA Motorcyces - the final evolution"..."Since July 1967, in a scheme known as Personal Export, Britain's motorcycle manufacturers were, in agreement with Her Majesty's Custom and Excise, able to offer foreign tourists new motorcycles at a considerably lower price than listed in their own country of origin. To qualify for the scheme - and avoid the extraordinarily high purchase tax that all of British-built motor vehicles were saddled with (the rate of which was 36 2/3 per cent by 1971, equating to a massive £148 on the retail price of the top-of-the-range BSA Rocket 3) - the potential buyer had only to reside outside of the UK, and collect the pre-paid bike in person. During the first year of the scheme, some dealers abused the system, presumably by selling to UK residents without charging the purchase tax, and this was brought to the attention of HM Customs which made BSA liable for the unpaid taxation. Certainly, by 1969, all bikes earmarked for the scheme were pre-registered in Birmingham."

Is this the seed for the creation of the "Y" bikes?It would not have been surprising for HM Customs to have required something a little more punitive of BSA than just writing a cheque for the unpaid taxation, but what would the rest of the story be? Was BSA forced to collect as many of these unpaid taxation bikes as they could, and then really export them as the dealers must have claimed originally? Surely, if that was the case, they would have had to provide a replacement to the customers who had unwittingly bought these bikes from the dealers, no small exercise before they ever got to stamping 1967 style numbers on later production bikes.

this was brought to the attention of HM Customs which made BSA liable for the unpaid taxation.It would not have been surprising for HM Customs to have required something a little more punitive of BSA than just writing a cheque for the unpaid taxation,Was BSA forced to collect as many of these unpaid taxation bikes as they could, and then really export them as the dealers must have claimed originally?

Nah, I'd be surprised. In '67/'68/'69, BSA was still a large company, with accompanying tax lawyers and accountants; it's simply unlikely that BSA employees travelled the country knocking on doors to get bikes back ... versus a cash penalty to C&E. BSA could simply have told C&E, "No. Go chase the individual dealers.", which could've cost HMG more than it got back in Purchase Tax. If you want a conspiracy, why would BSA's tax lawyers even consider accepting the Purchase Tax liability when the dealers were separate legal entities?

Then, even in the unlikely event that BSA employees did criss-cross GB collecting 'unexported export' bikes, why would the owners need '69 or '70 bikes with '67 numbers stamped on 'em? Bloke bangs on your door one day and says, "I must take away your two-/three-year-old BSA and give you this brand-new one", would you care what numbers were stamped on it? And, even in the more-unlikely event that this happened, not one single, solitary person this 'happened to' has ever spoken up?

Originally Posted by Two Alpha

on the BSA Motorcycles facebook page. "Frame number 17681 was built on the 5th June 1967 and dispatched to Slocombes, London, NW10. It was an A65 Spitfire.", "The bike was refurbished into the 'Y' bike in early June 1968 and sent to the USA East Coast."For this particular bike at least, it looks like we can eliminate dock strikes or being sent back from North America as factors leading up to the need for "refurbishment".

I'm possibly (likely) confused here but I thought a "Y" bike was one that'd just had certain modifications; it's a 'Dash Y' bike that's a '67 number on an otherwise-'69 or '70 bike?

Otoh, if I'm not confused, if a big dealer with a long-time relationship (as Slocombes was), if they didn't sell some bikes, and the factory could make a profit shifting 'em overseas, would it be that unusual? I'm struggling to recall what summer '67 was like in GB, but I do remember summer '68 as being crap (otoh, summer '69 is still legendary, and not just because of Bryan Adams ).

If you want a conspiracy, why would BSA's tax lawyers even consider accepting the Purchase Tax liability when the dealers were separate legal entities?

I would like to see the background for the quoted section from the book, as written it looks like BSA must have been caught with some pretty deep involvement.

Originally Posted by Stuart

Then, even in the unlikely event that BSA employees did criss-cross GB collecting 'unexported export' bikes, why would the owners need '69 or '70 bikes with '67 numbers stamped on 'em? Bloke bangs on your door one day and says, "I must take away your two-/three-year-old BSA and give you this brand-new one", would you care what numbers were stamped on it? And, even in the more-unlikely event that this happened, not one single, solitary person this 'happened to' has ever spoken up?

It would make more sense that the dealers would have rounded up the bikes, and, there's been a serious lack of speaking up about this all around. We've been told for years that these bikes were "refurbished" when, in fact, they were new production bikes with earlier 1967 style numbers. Back then, if the dealer called you up and offered a great trade-in value for the next years model, and you took it, what story would you be telling decades later?

Originally Posted by Stuart

I'm possibly (likely) confused here but I thought a "Y" bike was one that'd just had certain modifications; it's a 'Dash Y' bike that's a '67 number on an otherwise-'69 or '70 bike?

Otoh, if I'm not confused, if a big dealer with a long-time relationship (as Slocombes was), if they didn't sell some bikes, and the factory could make a profit shifting 'em overseas, would it be that unusual?

Perhaps, but the taxman is not going to be happy unless he's getting his share. A browse through the despatch books to sort out which dealers received the original 1967 bikes, the ones whose numbers were later used on the "Y" bikes, would be interesting. There were probably just a very few involved.

You know, through this whole long thread, and the books and theses on the British motor cycle industry that I've read, this small section in the Brad Jones book is the only mention I've seen or heard of this unpaid taxation problem BSA had.

Are you able to find out a little more about where the information in the book came from Stuart?

Duh! I've made a mistake; Purchase Tax was paid by a manufacturer, or importer into GB. It's VAT (Value Added Tax), that replaced PT, that introduced the money-go-round of every business - manufacturers/importers, wholesalers, retailers - paying VAT on sales and claiming back VAT on purchases (just Joe Public paying without being able to claim anything back ).

Originally Posted by Two Alpha

Back then, if the dealer called you up and offered a great trade-in value for the next years model, and you took it, what story would you be telling decades later?

Mmmm ... but, back then, fewer people had 'phones, so it still would've involved a lot of someone banging on doors to make the offer, tracing owners who'd moved, no central database to look up current addresses of owners who'd moved out of the area, or addresses of new owners if the bike'd been sold, what was the maximum "great trade-in value" that a dealer could offer to induce an owner who didn't want to sell? The word would've got 'round at the time that BSA dealers were offering great trade-in, when the owner of a tax-paid bike went to a dealer looking for a similar trade-in, how would that be handled?

Also I don't follow, having being found out dodging a bit of tax, on top of paying it back, how could (or why would) C&E demand the rigmarole of current-model bikes being stamped with '67 numbers and only being exported? My only thought is that, for some reason, someone sufficiently senior in BSA was worried about the company's second (1967) Queen's Award to Industry (for exports)? But were the numbers of 'personal exports not exported' so great as to make it necessary to concoct such a convoluted cover-up? And I never heard of a Queen's Award being withdrawn later?

And, as has been asked earlier in the thread discussing another theory, why wasn't Meriden affected by all this? No 'personal exports not exported' there?

I'm still dubious ...

Originally Posted by Two Alpha

this small section in the Brad Jones book is the only mention I've seen or heard of this unpaid taxation problem BSA had.Are you able to find out a little more about where the information in the book came from?

but, back then, fewer people had 'phones, so it still would've involved a lot of someone banging on doors to make the offer, tracing owners who'd moved, no central database to look up current addresses of owners who'd moved out of the area, or addresses of new owners if the bike'd been sold,

Just had a look through the small amount of "Y" bike dispatch information I've gathered, out of approx. 3,000 total most of the original 1967 bikes with those serial numbers were, or were intended to be, exported to North America. The numbers of export claimed bikes that were sold to British citizens at home would have been a low percentage, but not low enough for C&E apparently!

Originally Posted by Stuart

what was the maximum "great trade-in value" that a dealer could offer to induce an owner who didn't want to sell? The word would've got 'round at the time that BSA dealers were offering great trade-in, when the owner of a tax-paid bike went to a dealer looking for a similar trade-in, how would that be handled?

Is there a downside here for the dealers sales guys? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Stuart

Also I don't follow, having being found out dodging a bit of tax, on top of paying it back, how could (or why would) C&E demand the rigmarole of current-model bikes being stamped with '67 numbers and only being exported? My only thought is that, for some reason, someone sufficiently senior in BSA was worried about the company's second (1967) Queen's Award to Industry (for exports)? But were the numbers of 'personal exports not exported' so great as to make it necessary to concoct such a convoluted cover-up? And I never heard of a Queen's Award being withdrawn later?

I think you're hitting pretty close to it here Stuart. Along with the relatively low number of "personal exports not exported", there would have been maybe 2,500 more bikes that were claimed as exported that weren't. We've all heard the stories, dock strikes, bikes rejected once they reached North America, etc. It all seems to stem from an extra push for that Queen's Award for Exports. In the end, BSA had to make good on approx. 3,000 1967 serial numbers that they had claimed as being exported, but weren't. They actually did manage to refurbish and export some of the original bikes, most had to be replaced entirely except for the serial numbers.

Originally Posted by Stuart

And, as has been asked earlier in the thread discussing another theory, why wasn't Meriden affected by all this? No 'personal exports not exported' there?

I think Triumph production had a tougher time keeping pace with sales, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.

I was at Netley Eurojumble today, down in the New Forest. Just mooching about as I have a mind to do. Well look what I spotted for sale, and as it happens, it has been repatriated to the UK from Indiana in that there US of A....

So here is the bike, just your plain simple A65 Lightning... unrestored, low mileage 8000 miles I think it was. I will have to look at some other pictures later.

A65LA 7726 Y (no dash)

not very remarkable so far with what has gone before in this thread, BUT here is the interesting thing, on the right side of the headstock is a label... That has been there since 1970, stating that this BSA A65 was manufactured by BSA Motorcycles Limited on February 2nd, 1970.

As you can see, it does not have a TLS front brake. I apologise for the poor quality of my pictures at this time, I have some more to sort through, when I get a moment.